Jump to content


can my dual-450 G4 handle the new fps games???


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Pfhor

Pfhor

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 01 April 2004 - 10:18 PM

Today I registered to this forum in hope to get some opinions regarding my G4 for gaming. I have a dual-450 mhz G4. Now I know it's an older computer that will probably not work with the next generation games, but I'm looking into putting some money into upgrading it for games like Halo, CoD, UT04, BF1942, and maybe even Doom 3 when it comes out. Right now I got 256 megs of RAM and will probably pick up an extra 256 stick. Another 256 megs really helps out even when you got a pretty good graphics card, right? Because all the games that I'm interested in have 256 megs of RAM as a minimum requirement, so I expect 512 will be ideal for better framerates.

Also I'm gonna be purchasing either a Radeon 8500 or a Geforce 3 graphics card. But what I'm worried about is the processor itself. Those games I listed above have at least a few hundred  mhz higher requirements than my 450 mhz processor. I contacted Aspyr (thanks God they are porting the best WW2 games ever to the Mac) regarding CoD+BF1942 and if my dual processor can handle those games, and this is what they told me-

"I'm sorry, but you'll have to have at least one processor that runs at 700 MHz to run the game without problems.  We only have a few games that include SMP support, but the way the information is divided still requires one processor to meet the minimum requirements to run the game engine and keep it stable."

This doesn't look good for me and I don't have the money to dish out for a processor upgrade. So I wanted to hear from others that use either a dual 450 or 500 mhz G4. How does Halo and/or UT04 run? Does more RAM help out even though the processor does not meet the minimum requirements? Do these games or any other good FPS (like MoH: AA) have SMP support? I really hope to hear from anyone about this and thanks in advance for any help. It will play a lot into me deciding if I should upgrade my old G4 for this year's games or not. Peace.

#2 Whaleman

Whaleman

    High Priest of Bork

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5632 posts
  • Steam ID:holybork
  • Location:The Land of Bork
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 02 April 2004 - 05:41 AM

I'm sad to say, but your machine is way under specs. I have a dual 867, and I can play most games enjoyable, but I would never dream of trying it with half the processing power. Sorry.

Most games that can use a second processor uses it to offload the sound, but in games like UT2k4, the sound only represents less than 3% of the processor load, so the gain is minimum.

More memory does a lot when you're below 512MB, up to a GB can speed games up noticeably, but the step from 256 to 512 is the largest. But I'd say it won't help your machine. Save the money and start saving for a G5. Or if you're in an acute gaming need, a cheap PC or even cheaper: a console.
You shouldn't ask yourself such worthless questions. Aim higher. Try this: why am I here? Why do I exist, and what is my purpose in this universe?

(Answers: 'Cause you are. 'Cause you do. 'Cause I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one.)

***END MESSAGE***

#3 Pfhor

Pfhor

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 02 April 2004 - 01:22 PM

Maybe I'll upgrade my processor then, the prices don't seem too steep. Somewhere proabably between 900 mhz-1.3 ghz. If I send my dual processor to OWC, I get $85 rebate. But the question is, is it really worth it even when you got 512 megs of RAM and a quality 64MB VRAM graphics card? Because I am not interested in the best graphics, just want good framerates for games like UT2004, CoD and BF1942.

#4 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 02 April 2004 - 02:05 PM

Don't upgrade your computer--it's a complete and total waste of money.  Your G4's bus and RAM are too slow, and you can't fix that.  You need a whole new system, and it'll be better then upgrading the CPU on a price/performance standpoint.  I'd say the oldest computer that MIGHT be worth upgrading would be a 867 MHz G4 with the 133 MHz bus.
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#5 fudgebrown

fudgebrown

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 02 April 2004 - 08:16 PM

I have the exact machine as you -- and I use mine with the latest games -- Here's what is upgraded.  (was a dual 450) Now -- 1.3ghz G4 (Gigadesigns upgrade), Geforce 4 Ti, 1.12 Gigs of ram, LG 48x12x48x Combo drive, new quiet system fan, USB 2.0 card from Belkin (just bought one from Wal-mart works fine at 2.0 speed), Acard ATA-133 card for my 2 Hard drives (one 120GB 7200RPM Maxtor, other is backup 60GB 7200RPM maxtor. I have a bluetooth adapter and use the Apple wireless keyboard, Logitech MX700 mouse, Samsung 191T+ display (19"LCD). I have to say my setup is far from outdated now, and I play UT2003 at 1280x1024 everything maxed out and it looks great -- if you have any other questions let me know -- Timedemo in Quake 3 - 1280x1024, everything maxed out (timedemo 4) is 105FPS...

#6 Whaleman

Whaleman

    High Priest of Bork

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5632 posts
  • Steam ID:holybork
  • Location:The Land of Bork
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 02 April 2004 - 08:39 PM

Quote

I have the exact machine as you -- and I use mine with the latest games -- Here's what is upgraded.  (was a dual 450) Now -- 1.3ghz G4 (Gigadesigns upgrade), Geforce 4 Ti, 1.12 Gigs of ram, LG 48x12x48x Combo drive, new quiet system fan, USB 2.0 card from Belkin (just bought one from Wal-mart works fine at 2.0 speed), Acard ATA-133 card for my 2 Hard drives (one 120GB 7200RPM Maxtor, other is backup 60GB 7200RPM maxtor. I have a bluetooth adapter and use the Apple wireless keyboard, Logitech MX700 mouse, Samsung 191T+ display (19"LCD). I have to say my setup is far from outdated now, and I play UT2003 at 1280x1024 everything maxed out and it looks great -- if you have any other questions let me know -- Timedemo in Quake 3 - 1280x1024, everything maxed out (timedemo 4) is 105FPS...

But for the same money you would probably afford a G5. Or get a large step towards one at least.
You shouldn't ask yourself such worthless questions. Aim higher. Try this: why am I here? Why do I exist, and what is my purpose in this universe?

(Answers: 'Cause you are. 'Cause you do. 'Cause I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one.)

***END MESSAGE***

#7 Pfhor

Pfhor

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 02 April 2004 - 09:12 PM

So you are saying with 1 ghz+, 512 megs of RAM, and a Geforce 3 or decent Radeon card, my computer will not play these games good even though all their specs are a way below what I'm willing to obtain. Just because my RAM is 100 mhz, not 133?!? And what is my bus speed, because I have no clue what it is?

This seems preposterous! All I'm looking for is a system that will play games like Battlefield 1942 or Call of Duty decently, even if it means bringing the graphics detail to low quality. And saving up for a G5 is a big no no because saving up never seems to works out for me, especially for that price

#8 Pfhor

Pfhor

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 02 April 2004 - 09:21 PM

Oh that's good to hear fudgebrown. Yeah, he updated a lot more than I'm willing to but I'm sure he didn't pay what those G5's are going for now, plus he got a nice monitor. Also a lot of his features are just as good if not BETTER than what those G5's are offering it seems.

Hey fudgebrown, have you tried Halo or UT2004 out? Those are the main games (besides MoH but I know it'll work fine) that are out right now that I'm interested in.

#9 Malus121

Malus121

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Location:Tokyo Japan

Posted 02 April 2004 - 10:23 PM

Quote

Oh that's good to hear fudgebrown. Yeah, he updated a lot more than I'm willing to but I'm sure he didn't pay what those G5's are going for now, plus he got a nice monitor. Also a lot of his features are just as good if not BETTER than what those G5's are offering it seems.

Hey fudgebrown, have you tried Halo or UT2004 out? Those are the main games (besides MoH but I know it'll work fine) that are out right now that I'm interested in.

wow.....
No offense man but you've got a lot to learn about about computers.  First things first let me say this.  By the end of its time in the powermac the whole G4 archetecture was VASTLY outdated compared to the PC world.  The G4's top bus speed was at 167 while PC's had bus speeds in the 333-400+ range.  Not only that but it topped out at 1.42Ghz and as far as gaming goes wasnt very fast clock for clock.  
Anway.  Ill admit his setup is pretty nice, but if you look around on Apples special deals page they tend to have refurb G5's every once and a while.  You can get a refurb 1.6 for like $1399(or a 1.8 for i think 1599 last time I checked).  Now in terms of raw speed either of those systems would spank his even with all the fancy upgrades.  Why, simple
1)  The G5 proccesor is more effecient and has a higher clock than the G4 and gets significantly better framerates(Duel G4's can sometimes hold their own however).
2)  His system has a 100Mhz System bus.  By todays standards that is SLOW.  Heck even the top of the line G4's bus speed(167) is slow.  Now the low end G5 on the other hand has a bus speed of 800Mhz.  This means 8 times as much info can be passed between the G5's various system components(ram, vid card,HD,ect) than on that poor G4.  Its also over 4 Times faster than that of ANY G4.  In fact the LOW END G5's bus speed is as fast as the top of the line P4's.
3)  That G4 uses 2X AGP.  The G5 uses 8X AGP.  While it has been established that going from 4X AGP to 8X doesn't make much of a difference in todays(but not neccesarily tommorows) games, im sure the difference between 2X and 8X(heck even 2X to 4X) can be quite substantial.  
4)  So as not to go into over extensive detail almost everything on the G5's mobo is way faster than that of The G4(SATA VS PATA, Firewire 800, PC2700 ram,ect)

In the end even though the G4 has a better vid card and more ram out of the box, the G5 is still going to beat the living crap out of it in almost any game.  Now when you consider that right now you can get a refurb 1.6Ghz G5 for $1399, and that new models are hopefully just around the corner(which will drop prices on current models), it just dosnt make sense to pour money into an old G4(unless you get a really good deal on parts).

#10 Greg Grant

Greg Grant

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2526 posts

Posted 03 April 2004 - 02:06 AM

Y'know guys, some of you are ragging on P a little hard, gotta remember we all start somewhere....

FPS are probably the most demanding games outside of esoteric Flight Sims which the Mac doesn't have.

    If you absolutely can't afford $1399 or save up for it, $300 for a 1 Ghz processor, a GeForce 3 off ebay for about $100 and a 512er of PC-100 for about $65 will get you some milage but currently I'm rocking a Digital Audio G4 (4x AGP, 133 MHz bus) as opposed to your G4 which has a 100 Mhz Bus, 2x AGP and quite honestly I can say my machine is on its last legs.
   I've pretty much upgraded everything feasible in my box outside of jamming a Radeon 9800 in it, and I've been beta testing a new FPS on its way to the Mac and I'll be honest, the performance isn't exactly great. Its playable but certainly the life blood left in my poor G4 for gaming isn't long for the world. Fortunantly I've saved up a good deal and I've been waiting for the next revision of G5s so I can snag whatever is top of the line. Prior to that, I've fed a steady stream into my computer more for my audio work and web work which takes precedence over gaming for me.
   If I were in your shoes and had $500 saved, I'd strongly consider saving for a new G5, you're already more than 1/3 of the way there for a reburb. Plus you can always sell off your old Machine for a few hundred and drop more ram and a better graphics card into the G5 and be set for gaming. As mentioned above, there's more to a computer than just the CPU.

I've had my G4 for over 3 years (ironically during that my bro has had 3 PCs vs my one Mac) and I only paid $1650 for G4 originally. You've probably had your G4 for 4 years now, in computers that's fossil. Its time to throw in the towel and save for a new computer.
the IMG audio guy...

#11 Greg Grant

Greg Grant

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2526 posts

Posted 03 April 2004 - 02:11 AM

Quote

at MIGHT be worth upgrading would be a 867 MHz G4 with the 133 MHz bus.
Why 867? My Digital Audio G4 is essentially mobo wise the same as a Quicksilver, and it was the slowest 133 MHz Bus/4x AGP Mac at 466 Mhz. Upgrades cured me from my G5 fever and allowed me to save up a lot more money rather than just a low end G5.
the IMG audio guy...

#12 fudgebrown

fudgebrown

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 03 April 2004 - 10:38 AM

I have to say even though I have upgraded everything in my G4 (was dual 450), im ready for a G5. I have to say my current setup plays all the latest games pretty well, but it does slow down at times - like in UT2004 demo, the huge onslaught map where you drive vehicles, if there are like a good number of people in there, my setup will slow down to like 8 FPS (at 1280x1024 maxed). Where as the same map on a G5 with the crappy Geforce 5200 gives like 25-30 FPS think.  Even though you can spend less and keep upgrading a G4 - save up and get a G5 -- that's what I'm gonna do - i'm waiting till like the fall - hopefully dual 3ghz by then - and i won't look back.  ALso the G4s are freakin noisy as crap - im ready for a quiet computing experience. (yea the upgrades all have fans..)

#13 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 April 2004 - 12:16 PM

Upgrading isn't worth it.  It's going to cost you $500 to get a 1.3 GHz G4, and another $200 to get a Geforce4Ti (actually, I don't think you can even get that card because you have 2X AGP).  On top of that, it'll be about $50-60 to get 512 MB PC133 RAM (yep, PC133 will slow down to run at 100 MHz speed--and since they make more of it, it's cheaper).  There's $750 just to upgrade.  Now you've got a system which has a bus that's 13 times slower than your processor.  Think about the Dual 2.0 G5--it has a 1 GHz bus--that's a 2x ratio.

Even if you could get that Geforce4Ti to run, it's going to be incredibly starved for data--the CPU can't feed data through that pathetic 100 MHz bus.  Sure, if you did those upgrades, you might play Battlefield 1942 or Call of Duty decently on low settings.  But you're wasting money.  That guy who plays UT2003 @ 1280x1024 maxed out is probably getting a framerate that makes a Charlie Chaplain movie look smooth as silk.

The reason why I think that an 867MHz G4 is the last computer that's worth upgrading just following a simple rule of thumb:  don't upgrade your computer if the cost of upgrading is over half that of buying a new computer.  The 867MHz G4 has a fast enough processor that you don't have to shell out $350 (the upgrades are cheaper than the older G4 models) to get a 1.4 GHz CPU upgrade if you don't want to--all you have to do is buy a fast video card, like the Geforce4Ti, which is only $200.  That buys you a big enough speed boost to keep on gaming for a pretty long time.  Everything beneath it needs a CPU and GPU upgrade at the same time.  That's my reasoning, but I could be wrong.   :roll:

Anyway, whenever someone says upgrade, I say eBay, so here's a link to my post telling how I chose to "eBay" over "upgrade" (I believe it's like the second post or so):

http://www.insidemac...&highlight=ebay
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#14 Pfhor

Pfhor

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 03 April 2004 - 01:04 PM

Quicksilver, a 1.2-1.3 ghz update will actually cost me around $300, including the rebate that is. And I'm looking into a Radeon 8500, which currently there are a few on ebay way less than $200, but price will probably go upwards to it, we'll see. Malus is right though, those refurbished G5s are hundreds of dollars less than what Apple are regularly asking for. Thanks for all your opinions, even yours Quicksilver, as saving up for a G5 (or shall I say a refurbished one, ;)) is probably the best thing to do when you have an old cpu (even though when I got mine in 1999/2000 it was the 2nd best from Apple, heh).

When are the new G5s suppose to hit the market? I remember Jobs predicted this summer as the time when the 3ghz G5 should be released. Because if that 1.6 ghz G5 goes down even less, I'll probably pick up one, since my dad will want my G4.

If it is awile from now (meaning end of the year), I may just upgrade my G4 for less than $500 and just wait till those refurbished 1.6 ghz G5s are very cheap, that is if Apple will still selling them even though the new G5s lineup are out. hmm...

#15 Silver Samurai

Silver Samurai

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 03 April 2004 - 07:12 PM

I never thought of picking up a refurbushied one...
1/2 the ppl probably only use it for a few days and then return it.

Or better yet open box, thats how my sis' wa bought. Knocked off $150 just for bein open box. :D

I would say wait man. I mean I have my PB667 and while I would love to get a G5, I have my game systems to hold me over until I move out and can then buy a nice new Mac. I'll say this though, Macs age nicely. My 2 yr old PC is slow as hell, while my sis' and I's laptops (she has a G3 800) still do what we want. Although I wouldn't play anything beyond old games in hers.

Patience is a virtue.

#16 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 April 2004 - 07:45 PM

Yeah, sorry--sometimes I come off as being a ticked off guy, but that's because I try to write everything really fast (and this is probably the 20th time I've written almost the same thing).  Hmmmm, I wonder if that counts as a secret postcount++?  Better ask a mod!   :wink:
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#17 Lt.Page

Lt.Page

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 666 posts
  • Location:NorCal

Posted 03 April 2004 - 09:08 PM

you could probably run anything up to (but probably not including) halo with 450mhz.  and thats with 512 ram and either of those vid cards, at lowest settings.  256 is pretty unnacceptable for games, IMO.  512 is minimum for good framerates.
Do; or Do Not.  There is no try.
Pat yourself on the back if you know who Lt.Page is.

#18 Pfhor

Pfhor

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Location:San Jose, CA

Posted 03 April 2004 - 09:25 PM

The 450 mhz is out of the question because games beyond Allied Assault need a lot higher processor speeds at the minimum. I'm looking into upgrading my processor anyway to 1.2-1.4 ghz. The thing is my bus speed is only 100 mhz. Does that really effect games as much as some of you saying? I know it affects it a lot worse than what the G5 handles and yes it is very slow. But come on, 100 mhz should not suck for handling these games and then you go on to say the 133 mhz or 166 mhz should be just fine!? Yeah, it is a big difference since the mhz is so low, but is it really that bad? I've already asked the nice guy from Aspyr about bus speed and if 100 mhz can handle their upcoming WW2 games with my other specs on low graphics setting. I'll let ya all know what he said, hopefully it's positive. :D

Hey fudgebrown, since it seems like you are the only one who had a similar cpu than me, could you try UT2004 and Halo (if you got it) on 640x480 res, with the lowest textures and graphic quality? How much is the FPS on those outdoor maps? If it runs pretty good, then I'm sure CoD and BF1942 will run fine, because UT2004 and Halo have higher system requirements. BTW, is your Geforce Ti 64 or 128 megs of VRAM?

#19 Quicksilver

Quicksilver

    Verbal Windbag

  • IMG Writers
  • 4227 posts
  • Location:Chicago Illinois
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 04 April 2004 - 06:51 AM

The Geforce4Ti is 128MB--and it's really fast.  Even my MDD G4's 167 MHz bus is too slow--PCs have had faster busses than that for years, which is really pathetic.  However, since the problem is so bad, those few extra megahertz (and having AGP 4X for graphics cards) makes a significant difference.  Basically, Apple got really slowed down by the G4 (thanks Motorola).   :roll:
Former Senior Hardware Editor
InsideMacGames.com

#20 Disc

Disc

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 04 April 2004 - 01:26 PM

HI
I have to say get a refurb G5 for money.  I got a G5 1.8 single
and have to say its a refurb but bloody good machine.

Forget upgrading older machines you may love them but time
is out if you wish to play newest games and have a decent
frame rate upgrade. Really a G5 1.6 is min. I wouldnt get a
G4 now there dated. unless you need OS9 for work.

you can throw money at them but what is the point? You
throw $1000 at a machine would nearly buy you a G5
refurb. Your monitor fine keep it USB stuff keep it.
The machine.. sell it to make the money up for a G5.

you won't look back

Disc